[…] Already, the CVE pilot program has been re-branded
with a new name, Building Community Resilience. Luger’s office says it
captures the essence of his vision:to keep teens from Minnesota from
traveling to the Middle Eastand blowing themselves up.Luger says it will do so by providing $216,000 in federal funds – in
addition to other local and private support – which will be disbursed to
community groups through a grant-making organization. The social
services supported by the funding serve as crime prevention, he contends. (read more)

So it would appear the Counter Violent Extremism program, paying U.S. refugees not to wage jihad, *cough* “Crime Prevention” *cough*, is not quite as effective as the administration would prefer. Go figure."...

Two groups of Syrians, mainly families,
have already done that, arriving in the U.S. in the Laredo area and
then immediately presenting themselves to Border Patrol officers,
surrendering, and asking for political asylum.

The standard
operating procedure right now is to place them into the family detention
centers in Dilley or Karnes City, but many are released on bonds or on
ankle monitors after a few months in the facilities. And Cuellar points
out that once they are released, the demands of governor like Gov.
Abbott that they not be housed in Texas are meaningless.They have the
right to settle whenever in the U.S. they want, as long as they present
themselves for immigration hearings, which could be set for several
years in the future.

Cuellar says that has the effect of
scrapping all of the talk of a lengthy wait and 'vetting period' for
people seeking refugee status.

His suggestion, working together
with Mexico to make it harder for refugees, many of whom enter the
Americas in Central America, to make it to the U.S.

“Mexico stopped 174,00 people last year that were coming into the U.S, and they did it only with $80 million,” he said.

Two groups of Syrians, mainly families,
have already done that, arriving in the U.S. in the Laredo area and
then immediately presenting themselves to Border Patrol officers,
surrendering, and asking for political asylum.

The standard
operating procedure right now is to place them into the family detention
centers in Dilley or Karnes City, but many are released on bonds or on
ankle monitors after a few months in the facilities. And Cuellar points
out that once they are released, the demands of governor like Gov.
Abbott that they not be housed in Texas are meaningless.They have the
right to settle whenever in the U.S. they want, as long as they present
themselves for immigration hearings, which could be set for several
years in the future.

Cuellar says that has the effect of
scrapping all of the talk of a lengthy wait and 'vetting period' for
people seeking refugee status.

His suggestion, working together
with Mexico to make it harder for refugees, many of whom enter the
Americas in Central America, to make it to the U.S.

“Mexico stopped 174,00 people last year that were coming into the U.S, and they did it only with $80 million,” he said.

Who exactly has a vested interest in the rebuke of TPP along with support for Donald Trump?

*Footnote and Related:

*Currently on leave from Goldman Sachs– While on the Council of Foreign Relations HEIDI S. CRUZ completed a task force report on Building a North American Global Community
– she was also an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in
Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza
Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the
National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office
at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador
Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government
service, Mrs. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York
City.

Just a Reminder, this is an insurgency.The modern enemy of Wall Street is Donald Trump and a group of Main
Street vulgarians. The enemy of the RNC/GOPe is not Democrats, it's
those same grassroots conservatives, more main street vulgarians.

States that have primaries on or after March 15 will be winner-take-all states.

That's important because another RNC rule change requires that a
candidate must win a majority of delegates in eight or more states
before his or her name may be presented for nomination at the 2016
Republican National Convention.

With 18 GOP presidential candidates, for now, it will be that much
harderfor any candidate to win a majority in any state, let alone
eight. (Article July 2015)"...

"1. The Government’s Role in Climate Science Funding...[is] embedded
in scores of agencies and programs scattered throughout the Executive
Branch of the US government. While such agency activities related to
climate science have received funding for many years as components of
their mission statements,the pursuit of an integrated national agenda
to study climate change and implement policy initiativestook a critical
step with passage of the Global Change Research Act of 1990.This Act
established institutional structures operating out of the White Houseto
develop and oversee the implementation of a National Global Change
Research Plan and created the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
to coordinate the climate change research activities of Executive
Departments and agencies.[33] As
of 2014, the coordination of climate change-related activities resides
largely in the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy,
which houses several separate offices, including the offices of
Environment and Energy, Polar Sciences, Ocean Sciences, Clean Energy and
Materials R&D, Climate Adaptation and Ecosystems, National Climate
Assessment, and others. The Office of the President also maintains the
National Science and Technology Council, which oversees the Committee on
Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability and its Subcommittee
on Climate Change Research. The Subcommittee is charged with the
responsibility of planning and coordinating with the interagency USGCRP.
Also, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy is housed within
the President’s Domestic Policy Council. While Congress authorizes
Executive branch budgets, the priorities these departments and agencies
follow are set by the White House. As expressed in various agency and
Executive Branch strategic plans, these efforts have been recently
organized around four components comprising (1) climate change research
and education, (2) emissions reduction through “clean” energy
technologies and investments, (3) adaptation to climate change, and (4)
international climate change leadership.[36]....By any of
these measures, the scale of climate science R&D has increased
substantially since 2001. Perhaps, though, the largest funding increases
have occurred in developing new technologies and tax subsidies. As can
be seen from Table 1, federal dollars to develop and implement “clean
energy technologies” have increased from $1.7 billion in 2001 to $5.8
billion in 2013,while energy tax subsidies have increased from zero in
2001 and 2002 to $13 billion in 2013, with the largest increases
happening since 2010. The impact on scientific research of government
funding is not just a matter of the amounts but also of the
concentration of research monies that arises from the focus a single
source can bring to bear on particular kinds of scientific research.
Government is that single source and has Big Player effects because it
has access to a deep pool of taxpayer (and, indeed, borrowed and
created) funds combined with regulatory and enforcement powers which
necessarily place it on a different footing from other players and
institutions. Notwithstanding the interplay of rival interests within
the government and the separation of powers among the different
branches, there is an important sense in which government’s inherent
need to act produces a particular set of decisions that fall within a
relatively narrow corridor of ends to which it can concentrate
substantial resources.

2.By any standards,
what we have documented here is a massive funding drive,highlighting
the patterns of climate science RandD as funded and directed only by
the Executive Branch and the various agencies that fall within its
purview.[40]
To put its magnitude into some context, the $9.3 billion funding
requested for climate science R&D in 2013 is about one-third of the
total amount appropriated for all 27 National Institutes of Health in
the same year,[41]
yet it is more than enough to sustain a science boom. Its directional
characteristic, concentrated as it has been on R&D premised on the
controversial issue of the actual sensitivity of climate to human-caused
emissions, has gone hand in hand with the IPCC’s expressions of
increasing confidence in the AGW hypothesis and increasingly shrill
claims of impending disaster.

3. The recent pattern of federal climate science funding, moving toward
emphasis on the development of technologies and their subsidization
through the tax system, suggests that climate change funding has become
more tightly connected to agencies like the Department of Energy, NASA,
the Department of Commerce (NOAA), EPA, and cross-cutting projects and
programs involving multiple agencies under integrating and coordinating
agencies, like the USGCRP, lodged within the Executive branch. The
allocations of budgets within these agencies are more directly
determined and implemented by Administration priorities and policies. We
note that the traditional role of NSF in supporting basic science based
on a system of merit awards provided (despite some clear imperfections)
certain advantages with regard to generating impartial science. In
contrast, even a casual perusal of current agency documents, such as The
National Science and Technology Council’s The National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021, shows that those driving this movement make no pretense as to their premises and starting points.[39]

4. To be sure, the very opaqueness of these allocations and their
actual use only provides for “ball park” estimates. However, we believe
that the results presented in Table 3 come closer to a useful accounting
than what previously has been provided. We have combined data from
Leggett et al. (2013) and the AAAS Reports for Fiscal Years 2012 and
2013 (the only years for which the AAAS provides detailed budgetary data
for climate science R&D and climate-related funding). This
constrains Table 3 to including data only from 2010 through 2013. We
have adjusted budgetary data and categorized it in light of discussion
points 1-5 above. Note that the estimated aggregate expenditures for
climate science and climate-related funding (excluding tax subsidies)
from 2010-2013 in Table 3 are about twice that of the Leggett findings.

5.5 Funds administered by the Treasury Department in Table 2 are
credit lines and loans channeled through the World Bank earmarked for
international organizations to finance clean technologies and
sustainable practices; consequently such funds would also more
accurately be considered as climate-related sustainability and
adaptation....

8. This summary and the detail in Table 1, however, do not capture the
full scale of federal funding for climate science R&D. Two
complications must be considered to capture a more accurate estimate.
First, the entries in the first row of Table 1 for climate science only
refer to monies administered by the Executive branch via the office of
the USGCRP and does not include all climate-related R&D in the
federal budget. For example, the entry in Table 1 for the USGCRP in 2011
is just under $2.5 billion; yet the actual budget expenditures for
climate science-related R&D as calculated by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) total about $16.1
billion.[38]
In addition, since USGCRP funding is comprised of monies contributed
from the authorized budgets of the 13 participating departments and
agencies, a more accurate estimate of climate-related R&D requires
deducting USGCRP funding from the aggregated budgets of those 13, most
of which are included in Table 2.

9. Leggett et al. (2013) of the Congressional Research Service provides
a recent account of climate change funding based on data provided by
the White House Office of Management and Budget (see Table 1, below).
Total expenditures for federal funded climate change programs from
2001-2013 were $110.9 billion in current dollars and $120.2 billion in
2012 dollars. “Total budgetary impact” includes various tax provisions
and subsidies related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (which are
treated as “tax expenditures”) and shows total climate change
expenditures from 2001-2013 to be $145.3 billion in current dollars and
$155.4 billion in 2012 dollars.[37]

10. The USGCRP operates as a confederacy of the research components of
thirteen participating government agencies, each of which independently
designates funds in accordance with the objectives of the USGCRP; these
monies comprise the program budget of the USGCRP to fund agency
cross-cutting climate science R&D.[34]
The departments and agencies whose activities comprise the bulk of such
funding include independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Environmental
Protection Agency, US Agency for International Development, the
quasi-official Smithsonian Institute, and Executive Departments that
include Agriculture, Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology), Energy,
Interior (the US Geological Survey and conservation initiatives),
State, and Treasury.[35]

Philip
Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, told The Sun: 'Graffiti
in itself won't hurt anybody. But the ability of anyone to place a
prohibited item near fuel tanks is a concern, of course.'

"After touring refugee campsin Jordan, Republican
presidential candidate Ben Carson on Saturday suggested that camps
should serve as a long-term solution for millions, while other refugees
could be absorbed by Middle Eastern countries.

"I did not detect
any great desire for them to come to the United States," Carson told The
Associated Press in a phone interview from Jordan. "You've got these
refugeecamps that aren't completely full. And all you need is the
resources to be able to run them.Why do you need to create something
else?"........... The retired neurosurgeon toured the Azraq camp in
northern Jordan under heavy Jordanian security, with journalists
barred. Carson's campaign also limited access, not providing his
itinerary.

Carson's visit comes as he tries to strengthen
his fluency on international affairs as foreign policy becomes a greater
focus in the 2016 presidential contest. Advisers have conceded that his
knowledge of global affairs isn't where it needs to be and have
expressed hope that missions like his two-day trip to Jordan will help.

Carson and other Republicans have adopted a harsh
tone when discussing President Barack Obama's plan to welcome 10,000
Syrian refugees to the U.S. in this budget year. Debate over Syrians
fleeing their war-torn country erupted after a series of attacks in
Paris earlier this month that raised security concerns across the West.

Carson and his GOP rivals expressed concern that
extremists may sneak into the U.S. among them. Last week, he likened
blocking potential terrorists posing as Syrian refugees to handling "mad
dogs."

In a separate statement, he described Syrians as
"as very hard working, determined people, which should only enhance the
overall economic health of the neighboring Arab countries that accept
and integrate them into the general population."

And he broadened his call for financial support
beyond Americans: "The humanitarian crisis presented by the fleeing
Syrian refugees can be addressed if the nations of the world with
resources would provide financial and material support to the
aforementioned countries as well as encouragement."

More than 4 million Syrians fled their homeland
since 2011, after a popular uprising erupted against President Bashar
Assad and quickly turned into a devastating civil war. Most initially
settled in neighboring countries, but conditions there have become
increasingly difficult.

Syrian refugees are largely barred from working
legally and have to resort to informal, low-paying jobs if they can find
employment at all.

An aid appeal of $4.5 billion for refugees in
host countries in 2015 is only about half funded. The cash crunch has
created increasingly unbearable conditions for Syrian refugees in
Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and — to a lesser extent — in economically more
robust Turkey. In 2015, hundreds of thousands of refugees moved on to
Europe in hopes of a better life."

Armey, in a video posted Friday to the website of the conservative magazine Newsmax, effused praise for Daniels and expressed a preference for one of the
other former governors expected to join the race as a possible
alternative.

"Now, folks, all of these articles,
it's amazing how this works, and the lead article today AP, all these
articles that we're now seeing about how the Bin Laden mission has made it impossible for any Republican candidate to ever match Obama's foreign policy achievements,
never mind that before being elected president, Obama had zero
experience in foreign policy, for that matter, in anything else. Even
as a United States Senator, Obama never showed the slightest interest in foreign policy, apart from endlessly attacking all of the Bush foreign policies that he now embraces....And then Mitch Daniels is out there saying that he's probably not ready to debate Obama on foreign policy?... His foreign policy's a disaster. His foreign policy's been an unmitigated disaster, from Iran, to North Korea, to Libya. Where he's done well it's only because he's following Bush's foreign policies to the letter.Folks, we know that we've got challenges on our side in the Republican Party, but we do not need to be running around and saying, "Okay, we like Mitch Daniels cause his conservatism isn't combative." Mitch Daniels pipes up and says, "I'm not ready to debate Obama
in foreign policy." What? Why do we shoot ourselves in the foot?
Why do we let these people set the premise and then we react?"...

"It would be good to have somebody from the Midwest. I've got an
out-of-the-box ideafor you, how about the former governor of Indiana,
Mitch Daniels," Rove said Wednesday on "Newsmax Prime" with J.D.
Hayworth.

"[He's] done an exemplary job serving in the Reagan administration,
serving in the Bush administration, serving as an eight-year very
successful governor of a Midwestern state.

"And is now taking a strong role in reforming our education as the
president of Purdue University. Anybody would be well-advised to look at
him as a VP running mate."

Daniels, 66, served as governor of Indiana from 2005 to 2013. He
considered a 2012 presidential run, but bowed out early citing family
and personal concerns. His name was also briefly voted as a potential
presidential candidate this year.

Nicknamed "The Blade" by President George W. Bush when he was director
of Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2003, Daniels also was
also a member of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security
Council.

While Rove likes Daniels, he said he was one of many candidates qualified to back up the next commander-in-chief.

"Obviously every person who's running for president gets to be seriously
considered, but I'm giving you the out-of-box idea here as a
Thanksgiving eve present," Rove said."

"Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said today that New York
City would not accept a $10 million charitable donation from a wealthy
prince from Saudi Arabia who criticized the American government's
policies in the Middle East........

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud... attended a memorial service at the site today, where he handed
the mayor a check for $10 million for the Twin Towers Fund, one of
various charity funds set up to benefit survivors of the attack.

The (Prince's) letter added, "I would also like to condemn all
forms of terrorism and in doing so I am reiterating Saudi Arabia's
strong stance against these tragic and horrendous acts."...

A spokesman for the prince, Amjed Shacker, who was
reached on his cell phone as he prepared to board a plane for Saudi
Arabia, said he knew of no such rejection and indeed seemed perplexed to
learn of it. "The mayor took the check at 9 a.m.," he said. "We have no
knowledge of that. He accepted the check."...

"Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Thursday the city would not accept a $10
million donation for disaster relief from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin
Talal after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East
contributed to the September 11 attacks."I entirely reject that statement," Giuliani said. "There is no moral
equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it.
The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it
when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people."

Prince Alwaleed gave the mayor a check after a Thursday morning memorial
service at Ground Zero, the site of the World Trade Center towers
destroyed in the attacks.

"The check has not been deposited. The Twin Towers Fund has not accepted it," Giuliani said in a statement late Thursday.

The prince's statement said the United States "should re-examine its
policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the
Palestinian cause."While the U.N. passed clear resolutions numbered 242 and 338 calling
for the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip decades
ago, our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of
Israelis while the world turns the other cheek," the statement said.

Giuliani flatly rejected the prince's position. "To suggest that there's
a justification for [the terrorist attacks] only invites this happening
in the future," he said. "It is highly irresponsible and very, very
dangerous.